Success of Right-wing School Board Candidates is a Bad Omen

It’s probably too early for a real analysis of why the Harris/Walz ticket was defeated in this year’s presidential election, although there are plenty of people taking a crack at it. For a couple of interesting examples, take a look at Heather Cox Richardson’s Nov. 6 column , or David Brooks in the New York Times. Important factors certainly included sexism and racism. Many Americans still aren’t ready to accept a woman leader — especially a Black woman. And I spoke to one local person who said that many Black men he knew were wary of voting for Harris because she had been a prosecutor, putting other Black men and minorities behind bars. Whether or not that was a factor, Harris’s share of the Black vote was some 10% lower than Biden’s. But the most significant factor was probably voter turnout. According to a Nov. 11 New York Times story , Democratic turnout was significantly lower than in 2020. This helped produce a narrow majority in the popular vote for the Republican ticket. Trump’s total nationwide was about 74 million votes, roughly the same as he received in 2020. Harris, on the other hand, was at 70 million — roughly 11 million less than President Biden’s 2020 total. If those voters had come out again and voted mostly Democratic, Harris would have some 81 million votes to Trump’s 74 million, giving her the popular vote. Depending on where the voters lived, that could have produced a very different result in the Electoral College and the election itself. Though the Electoral College totals imply otherwise, this was really a close election. Incidentally, a reaction against incumbents may be another significant factor, and a global rather than a U.S. phenomenon. An article in the Financial Times notes that every incumbent party — on both ends of the political spectrum — in developed countries lost significant vote share in an election this year — an astonishing turn of events. Here on the Eastern Shore, nobody should be surprised that the majority of the voting public went for the Republicans. The area, after all, is predominantly rural and conservative, with a few blue enclaves such as Easton and Chestertown. While town-by-town results on the Shore are not yet available, in Talbot County, in which Easton is the largest town, Trump won by some 500 votes. Queen Anne’s gave Trump the win by about 9,000 votes. Local elections were not on the ballot in 2024, but local officials on the Shore — mayors, sheriffs, state’s attorneys, county commissioners, delegates to the General Assembly, etc. — largely reflect that Republican dominance. And day-to-day life is more directly affected by these people in all communities than by anyone in Washington. Still, what happens on the national level will have its effect on all of us. The architects and supporters of Project 2025 are going to be part of the new Trump administration, and he has appointed some of the project’s supporters already. Those appointees are probably going to be quite adamant in pushing through their agenda. Even if they can’t accomplish everything, some of the proposed plans ought to be cause for concern, above all the weakening of women’s rights, especially reproductive freedom. And with the Senate, possibly the House, and the Supreme Court effectively on the same page as the administration, the constitutional checks and balances will be severely weakened. If, as he said he would, Trump imposes heavy tariffs on imports, almost every economist predicts that consumer prices will rise, thus making it harder to control inflation. If a mass deportation of immigrants gets underway, many jobs will go unfilled, particularly in construction and food service. This will further hurt the economy. It’s possible that pressure to fill those jobs could raise wages. If RFK Jr. brings his anti-vaccine beliefs to the health department, another pandemic — a new covid strain, or just the regular flu — could kill millions. If Elon Musk starts cutting back what he perceives as governmental waste, programs benefitting local communities are likely to suffer, again removing dollars from local and state economies. The foreign policy implications of some of Trump’s statements could be significant. He has threatened to pull the U.S. out of NATO. This may be unlikely, but that political stance may encourage current and would-be aggressors in Europe and the Middle East. And Trump has said he will end the war in Ukraine in one day. Does he really have that much influence on Putin? Or does Putin have that much influence on Trump? Time will tell. Looking down the road, one also has to consider Trump’s health. Born in June 1946, he will be 82 by the end of his term. What if he becomes incapacitated, physically or mentally? A stroke, a heart attack, or just the rigors of old age in a stressful office — all are possible. Would Vice President-elect Vance, a former venture capitalist in the technology sector, continue Trump’s policies, or would he have ideas of his own? At one time, Vance criticized many of Trump’s positions. If Trump is no longer in charge, could there be a period of infighting as various factions within the party and administration assert their own priorities? Any of that could have significant effects, and it’s not unlikely, given Trump’s age. So it looks as if we are about to live in “interesting times.” Some people are talking about leaving the country, while others are still trying to understand what just happened. Many are already looking forward and starting to concentrate on the 2026 midterms, when Republicans could consolidate their gains or Democrats could make a comeback. May we all get through these times to the point where we can tell a younger generation the kinds of stories our elders told us about the Great Depression or the Civil Rights movement — hopefully, with something resembling a happy ending. Peter Heck is a Chestertown-based writer and editor, who spent 10 years at the Kent County News and three more with the Chestertown Spy. He is the author of 10 novels and co-author of four plays, a book reviewer for Asimov’s and Kirkus Reviews, and an incorrigible guitarist. 

 The 2024 presidential election was over swiftly. The Associated Press called it at 5:34 am on Nov. 6, and by 8 am, President-elect Donald Trump was crowing about the “ historic mandate ” given to him by the American people. A “mandate”? Turns out not. Trump jumped to an early lead on election night, but in the following days, his lead diminished as mail-in and provisional ballots were counted. A Baltimore Banner article on Nov. 6 highlighted the “Trump shift” that had occurred in every political subdivision in Maryland, even in counties where Democrat Kamala Harris won. This shift described the increase in Trump support since his loss to President Joe Biden in 2020 . As of Nov. 6, the biggest Trump shift was an 8.1% increase in his support in red Cecil County, but there were also shifts in the central Maryland counties that are the state’s Democratic strongholds — 4.3% in Montgomery and lesser amounts in other blue counties. Fourteen counties recorded shifts of 4% or more. On the Eastern Shore, every county had a shift over 4.5% except Talbot (2.7%), and the five largest shifts were Shore counties. For the state’s Democrats, it did not look encouraging. But as mail-in and provisional ballots were counted across the state, the Trump shift was reduced everywhere, and as of Nov. 16, disappeared altogether in Garrett (-1.2%) and Charles (-0.1%) counties. The shift dropped below 3% in all Maryland counties. Cecil’s shift became 2.1%. Montgomery’s shift dropped to 2.9%. Talbot’s shift declined to 0.2%, lowest of the Eastern Shore counties. Now, instead of five, only two of the highest five shifts were in Eastern Shore counties. The red bars in the chart below represent the Trump shift percentage values as of Nov. 16, in ascending order. The grey bars represent the misleading (and ephemeral) Trump shift percentage values as of Nov. 6. Please note the degree to which the Trump shift lessened and disappeared in the 10 days after the election. Another red mirage. But if you had only read the Nov. 6 article and not looked at the updated data, you would have been fooled into thinking Trump support is stronger than it is.

Although the election of Trump as president represents an open threat to maternal health according to the statements in Project 2025, there were some wins for women’s health at the voting booths. One major win for Maryland is the election of Angela Alsobrooks to the Senate. She has stated her position explicitly . She promised to co-sponsor the Women’s Health Protection Act, which would reinstate a nationwide right to abortion care by codifying Roe v. Wade . Even more strongly, she declares she will oppose any judicial nominee who does not support abortion rights. She firmly believes Congress and the Supreme Court should respect women’s health care decisions and leave them to be made between women and their doctors. Maryland also is a winner for passing a ballot measure to add the right to abortion into the state constitution. Six other states did the same: Arizona, Colorado, Missouri, Montana, New York, and Nevada. The National Law Review stated, “In Colorado, Maryland, New York, and Nevada, abortion was already protected under state law, so the ballot measures did not change what employers and health insurers will need to do to comply with the law. However, the ballot measures enshrined the right to abortion in those state constitutions, so it will be harder for future lawmakers to revoke these protections in the future.” Similar ballot measures failed in three states: Florida, Nebraska, and South Dakota. Maryland’s measure states that every person “has the fundamental right to reproductive freedom, including but not limited to the ability to make and effectuate decisions to prevent, continue, or end one’s pregnancy. The state may not, directly or indirectly, deny, burden, or abridge the right unless justified by a compelling state interest achieved by the least restrictive means.” Ironically, Amanda Marcotte in Salon noted that “In state after state, voters backed both Trump and ballot initiatives that advanced and protected progressive goals.” Fortunately, many organizations have reaffirmed their intention to continue to fight for women’s health. Moms Rising , for example, affirms its dedication to maternal health: “Focusing on equity in pregnancy, childbirth, and the period after childbirth, our organizing is built on understanding and lived experience of greater systemic issues mothers experience throughout motherhood due to race, class, and gender disparities. This work includes campaigns on maternal mortality/morbidity, as well as mass incarceration and police reform.” According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention , the maternal mortality rate in the United States is 32.9 deaths per 100,000 live births. In 2021, 1,205 women died of maternal causes compared to 861 in 2020 and 754 in 2019. That does not include all deaths occurring to pregnant or recently pregnant women. According to the American Medical Association, this spike in maternal deaths is the highest since 1965. The reasons are many. Dr. Sandra Fryhofer stated that “Black women are three times likelier than White women to die from a pregnancy-related cause. Health care access problems, underlying chronic conditions, and structural racism and implicit bias all contribute to these bleak statistics. “Poor insurance coverage prior to, during, and after pregnancy; lack of interprofessional teams trained in best practices; and closure of maternity units in many rural and urban communities” are other factors that contribute to bad maternal outcomes according to the AMA. It recommends expanding access to medical and mental health care and social services for postpartum women. The Commonwealth Fund wrote, “The United States continues to have the highest rate of maternal deaths of any high-income nation, despite a decline since the covid-19 pandemic. And within the U.S., the rate is by far the highest for Black women. Most of these deaths — over 80% — are likely preventable.” In her recent book, Eve (2023), Cat Bohannon explores women’s health within the largest framework possible — the last 200 million years of human evolution. She explains that humans have relied on gynecological aid for millennia because giving birth is very risky. However, when well supported and cared for, women can give birth successfully to the future generations, that is, as long as they have special care before, during, and after birth. According to the Commonwealth Fund , “Nearly two of three maternal deaths in the U.S. occur during the postpartum period, up to 42 days following birth. Compared to women in the other countries we studied, U.S. women are the least likely to have supports such as home visits and guaranteed paid leave during this critical time. The U.S. and Canada have the lowest supply of midwives and ob-gyns.” Given that mothers shape the health and growth of new generations, a society needs to put special emphasis into promoting the health and education and social well-being of infants and children by their moms. That means supporting women. Countries that do this benefit economically on the national scale and those that don’t fall behind. Racism and misogyny embedded in cultural practices, such as giving preference to males in detriment to females, to White people instead of to Black and Brown people, have long reaching deleterious effects. Egalitarianism has always been a human tendency that improves the chances of human survival. Jeanette E. Sherbondy is a retired anthropology professor from Washington College and has lived here since 1986. In retirement she has been active with the Kent County Historical Society and Sumner Hall, one of the organizers of Legacy Day, and helped get highway /historical markers recognizing Henry Highland Garnet. She published an article on her ethnohistorical research of the free Black village, Morgnec.

There is an urgent issue in Salisbury requiring immediate engagement. Mayor Randy Taylor's administration is trying to hide from our community that they intend to internally and unilaterally rewrite our 10-year Comprehensive Plan, without the knowledge of the Salisbury City Council. We need to encourage Mayor Randy Taylor and the City Administration that our council and our community deserve to be a part of this vital process. Last week public comments were collected at the City Headquarters Building. Residents submitted written comments and could share a three-minute comment addressing why this plan to subvert the Comprehensive Plan approval process is concerning to them. You can still help! Share this Email . We need to show the City that our residents are ready to take action! Please consider sending an email with this form to directly express your concerns to the Mayor's Office. Jared Schablein is the chair of Shore Progress.

Too often, K-12 social studies classes in the U.S. teach a mostly glossed-over story of U.S. settlement. Textbooks tell the stories of adventurous European explorers founding colonies in the “New World,” and stories of the “first Thanksgiving” frequently portray happy colonists and Native Americans feasting together.